4.6 Article

Women with symptoms of sleep-disordered breathing are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for sleep apnea than men

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 17-22

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2017.02.032

Keywords

Snoring; Sleepiness; Gender differences; Sleep apnea; CPAP

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council [214123]
  2. Icelandic Research Council
  3. Aarhus universitet [240008]
  4. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation
  5. Estonian Science Foundation [4350]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Women are often underrepresented at sleep clinics evaluating sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). The aim of the present study was to analyze gender differences in sleep apnea diagnosis and treatment in men and women with similar symptoms of SDB. Methods: Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) provided information about snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), BMI and somatic diseases at baseline (1999-2001) and follow-up (2010-2012) from 4962 men and 5892 women. At follow-up participants were asked whether they had a diagnosis of and/or treatment for sleep apnea. Results: Among those with symptoms of SDB (snoring and EDS), more men than women had been given the diagnosis of sleep apnea (25% vs. 14%, p < 0.001), any treatment (17% vs. 11%, p = 0.05) and CPAP (6% vs. 3%, p = 0.04) at follow-up. Predictors of receiving treatment were age, BMI, SDB symptoms at baseline and weight gain, while female gender was related to a lower probability of receiving treatment (adj OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.3-0.5). In both genders, the symptoms of SDB increased the risk of developing hypertension (adj OR, 95% CI: 1.5, 1.2-1.8); and diabetes (1.5, 1.05-2.3), independent of age, BMI, smoking and weight gain. Conclusions: Snoring females with daytime sleepiness may be under-diagnosed and under-treated for sleep apnea compared with males, despite running a similar risk of developing hypertension and diabetes. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available